Let's Keep Defining It Down

You want a great example of everything that's been wrong with the Democratic party since the third-way Democrats took over in the early 1990s? Take a good look at former Clintonite and current a-hole Matt Miller's piece from the WaPo. Matt takes on us crazy liberals who believe that without a government option, health care reform ain't worth spit. Actually, like all good centrist Dems, he ignores actual arguments from the left in favor of shooting down the charactures of arguments from the left.

Matt comes out swing and labeling. First, "the left" is "dangerous" because we are opposed to the wonders of "the biggest progressive achievement in half a century," which says a lot more about the last half century than it does about the dangerous left.

In the next paragraph the dangerous left becomes "Democrats" and/or "liberals" who have mindlessly been led astray by unnamed leaders who say that without a public option, health care "reform" is a waste of time.

Matt takes on the liberal, Democrat, dangerous left leaders. Apparently, we believe without a Medicare-style public option, there will be no way to cover everyone. Matt trumps us with the Netherlands and Switzerland. They have universal coverage and private insurance. Their health system is better and cheaper. Boom, dangerous leftists destroyed by real-world facts.

What Matt fails to mention, of course, is that while the Swiss have private insurance, they don't allow for-profit insurers to participate in the basic plan. This seems like an important distinction, as getting rid of for-profit insurance would certainly lower costs in the US and is not an idea that anybody is proposing right now. Other than that, yes the Swiss example is spot on.

Oh and, while were here, maybe Matt can throw out an insane right-wing talking point.

In fact, as these two countries show, it is possible to cover everyone without a “big government takeover.”

Matt continues by reminding us that the public option is not the most important thing. The most important thing is providing all Americans "access" to group health coverage outside of the employment context. Matt sees this happen through the wonders of the regional co-ops.

The central progressive breakthrough in any reform should be to make it possible for every American to access group health coverage outside the employment setting — access that does not currently exist but which the proposed insurance exchanges would enable. What’s critical, therefore, is the structure of these exchanges and the rules about who would be eligible to use them.

That's right. Matt has managed to define the essential need of health care reform from universal coverage with effective, quality health care to access to something. And the real danger, as it always is to a Clintonite is that if we don't get about compromising with the Republicans over the crumb they might allow us, well they might just take it away.

Matt then spends a few paragraphs attacking the one thing that nobody is proposing, but would actually solve a lot of problems - single-payer. Can you guess why single-payer would be bad? Did you guess that the crushing hand of government bureaucracy would stifle innovation? You guessed right!

On the eve of beneficial innovations in drug therapies, devices and cost-­effective ways to deliver better care, it is ill-advised to make the government’s hand too rigid.

Oh glory day we are on the eve of! Oh happy future! When? How? Unanswered, but assured.

Liberals should make peace with the notion that a regulated market of competing private health plans can be the vehicle for getting everyone covered. Yes, it means that unlike some other advanced countries, we’ll have billions of “health” dollars siphoned off by middlemen and marketers.

But if liberals think of it as a jobs program, they’ll learn to love it. If everyone’s covered and insurer “cherry-­picking” is dead, health insurance will come to look more like a regulated utility.

A regulated market "can" be a vehicle for accomplishing the half-assed goal of getting everyone "covered," sure. Let's not for a moment stop to consider what kind of coverage for how much and who benefits. Those issues pale in comparison to the larger goal of making sure everyone has "access" to "coverage." And even if the whole thing turns out just like a non-governmental Enron-type utility, so much the better. I will rest easy knowing that there are lots of middle men employed in the business of denying the claims of poor people, because, in the end, it's all about jobs, jobs, jobs, n'est pas?